19750 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices 

1. A final program and financial 

report no more than 90 days after the 

expiration of the award. This report 

must disclose cost sharing and be 

certified by the award recipient’s chief 

financial officer or an officer of 

comparable rank. 

2. Quarterly financial reports within 

thirty (30) days following the end of the 

calendar year quarter. These reports 

should itemize separately International 

Visitor costs, Voluntary Visitor costs, 

English Language Officer/Interpreter 

costs for International Visitors, English 

Language Officer/Interpreter costs for 

Voluntary Visitors, special project costs 

by projects, and administrative costs for 

the previous quarter on a cash basis. 

These reports should also list separately 

the number of English Language 

Officers/Interpreters accompanying 

International Visitors, and the number 

of English Language Officers/ 

Interpreters accompanying Voluntary 

Visitors for whom funds are expended. 

Quarterly financial reports must be 

certified by the award recipient’s chief 

financial officer or an officer of 

comparable rank. For further 

information, please refer to the 2008 

Program Objectives, Goals, and 

Implementation (POGI) document. 

3. Such operating, statistical, and 

financial information relating to the 

program as may be requested by the DoS 

to meet its reporting requirements and 

answer inquiries concerning the 

operation of the IVL program, as 

stipulated in the FY 2008 Program 

Objectives, Goals, and Implementation. 

4. Reports analyzing evaluation 

findings should be provided to the 

Bureau in award recipient’s regular 

program reports. (Please refer to IV. 

Application and Submission 

Instructions (IV.3.d.3) above for Program 

Monitoring and Evaluation information. 

All data collected must be maintained 

for a minimum of three years and 

provided to the Bureau upon request. 

All reports must be sent to the ECA 

Grants Officer and ECA Program Officer 

listed in the final assistance award 

document. 

VII. Agency Contacts 

For questions about this 

announcement, contact: Michelle 

Lampher, Office of International 

Visitors, Community Relations Division, 

Room 247, Reference Number ECA/PE/ 

V–08–01, U.S. Department of State, SA–

44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20547, telephone 202–203–7193, fax 

202–453–8631, or e-mail 

LampherMC@state.gov. 

All correspondence with the Bureau 

concerning this RFGP should reference 

the above title and number ECA/PE/V–

08–01. Please read the complete 

announcement before sending inquiries 

or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP 

deadline has passed, Bureau staff may 

not discuss this competition with 

applicants until the proposal review 

process has been completed. 

VIII. Other Information 

Notice: 

The terms and conditions published 

in this RFGP are binding and may not 

be modified by any Bureau 

representative. Explanatory information 

provided by the Bureau that contradicts 

published language will not be binding. 

Issuance of the RFGP does not 

constitute an award commitment on the 

part of the Government. The Bureau 

reserves the right to reduce, revise, or 

increase proposal budgets in accordance 

with the needs of the program and the 

availability of funds. Awards made will 

be subject to periodic reporting and 

evaluation requirements per section VI.3 

above. 

Dated: April 12, 2007. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E7–7463 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement—Nolichucky Reservoir 

Flood Remediation Project 

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA). 

ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in 

accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations (40 

CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and TVA’s 

procedures implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act. TVA has 

decided to adopt Alternative A—No 

Action, the preferred alternative 

identified in its Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS), Nolichucky 

Reservoir Flood Remediation Project. In 

implementing Alternative A, TVA 

would continue to provide updated 

flood level information to local agencies 

and individuals. This would not 

preclude TVA working with individual 

landowners to address problems in the 

future. TVA would take no other action 

to address the impacts of flooding of 

private land and property around 

Nolichucky Reservoir. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles P. Nicholson, NEPA Program 

Manager, Environmental Stewardship & 

Policy, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 

West Summit Hill Drive WT 11B, 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902–1401; 

telephone (865) 632–3582 or e-mail 

cpnicholson@tva.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Nolichucky Dam was built by the 

Tennessee Eastern Electric Company in 

1913 at mile 46 on the Nolichucky 

River, about 7.5 miles south of 

Greeneville, Greene County, Tennessee. 

Nolichucky Reservoir, also known as 

Davy Crockett Lake, extends upstream 

about 6 miles from the dam. TVA 

acquired the project in 1945 and 

operated it as a single-purpose power 

production facility. By 1945, sand and 

silt from mining in the upper 

Nolichucky watershed in western North 

Carolina had begun to fill the reservoir. 

The sediment in the reservoir continued 

to accumulate to the point that TVA 

removed the electric generators from 

service between 1965 and 1972. Since 

1972, the project has been jointly 

managed by TVA, the Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Agency, and local 

organizations for wildlife management, 

environmental education, and 

recreation. 

The Federal government owns 

approximately 1,400 acres of land under 

and around Nolichucky Reservoir and 

holds easements giving it the right to 

flood an additional 370 acres of land 

along this part of the river. At the time 

TVA acquired these landrights in 1945, 

the landrights did not include all of the 

area affected by Nolichucky Dam during 

flood events. Since then, the 100-year 

flood elevation has increased up to 10 

feet due to the accumulated sediment in 

the reservoir. The federal landrights 

include about 54 percent of the area 

within the present 500-year floodplain 

and about 63 percent of the area within 

the 100-year floodplain. 

TVA published a Notice of Intent to 

prepare this EIS in the Federal Register 

on January 12, 2000. Public and agency 

scoping meetings were held on January 

20, 2000; 52 people attended the public 

scoping meeting. Scoping comments 

were received from one Federal agency, 

one nongovernmental organization, and 

seven individuals. Following a series of 

agency and public workshops, the Draft 

EIS was released in January 2002 and 

the Notice of Availability of the Draft 

EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on February 8, 2002. TVA held 

a public meeting on the Draft EIS in on 

February 21, 2002 and accepted 

comments through March 29, 2002. 

Comments on the Draft EIS were 

received from 65 individuals. Two 

federal agencies and three state 

agencies. The Notice of Availability for 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices 19751 

the Final EIS was published in the 

Federal Register on November 3, 2006. 

Alternatives Considered 

TVA identified four alternatives in the 

EIS. 

Under Alternative A—No Action, 

TVA would provide updated flood level 

information to local agencies and 

individuals but would not take any 

other actions to address flood impacts 

on nonfederal lands. TVA would 

continue to maintain Nolichucky Dam 

and Powerhouse as required by federal 

dam safety regulations and to preserve 

their historic value. TVA would 

maintain the reservoir’s recreational 

uses through agreements with other 

agencies and organizations that provide 

for wildlife management, environmental 

education, and public parks. 

Under Alternative B—Acquire 

Landrights, TVA would address flood 

impacts on nonfederal lands by 

acquiring either fee title or easements 

with the right to flood all of the 

nonfederal land within the present 500- 

year floodplain around Nolichucky 

Reservoir (about 1,060 acres). If TVA 

acquired fee title, TVA would buy the 

affected land and all structures built on 

it and would hold all rights concerning 

use of that land. If TVA acquired only 

a flowage easement, TVA would buy the 

right to overflow and flood specific 

parts of the property on an intermittent 

and temporary basis. The owner could 

continue to use the easement land in 

many ways, but would relinquish the 

right to build structures below a specific 

elevation and would have to receive 

TVA approval prior to developing the 

affected land. TVA would maintain the 

reservoir’s recreational uses through 

agreements with other agencies and 

organizations that provide for wildlife 

management, environmental education, 

and public parks. Most new land 

acquired in fee would probably be 

added to the existing wildlife 

management area. TVA would continue 

to maintain Nolichucky Dam and 

Powerhouse as required by federal dam 

safety regulations and to preserve their 

historic value. This alternative could be 

implemented within 3 years and would 

cost between $15 and $20 million. 

Under Alternative C—Lower 

Nolichucky Dam, TVA would address 

flood impacts on nonfederal lands by 

lowering the Nolichucky Dam spillway 

after removing or stabilizing sediment in 

the reservoir. The spillway would be 

lowered by about 40 feet so that the 500- 

year flood elevation would only affect 

land already in federal ownership or 

covered by flowage easement. This 

would reduce the reservoir pool area 

from 455 to about 160 acres and convert 

much of it into a more riverine 

environment. All federal land around 

the reservoir would remain in public 

ownership and would continue to be 

used for wildlife management, 

environmental education, and public 

parks. TVA would continue to maintain 

Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse as 

required by federal dam safety 

regulations and to preserve their historic 

value. This alternative would require 5 

to 10 years to implement and cost 

between $45 and $70 million. 

Under Alternative D—Remove 

Nolichucky Dam, TVA would address 

flood impacts on nonfederal lands by 

removing all visible components of 

Nolichucky Dam and Powerhouse and 

removing or stabilizing sediment in the 

reservoir. In accordance with historic 

preservation requirements, TVA would 

document the dam and powerhouse and 

preserve qualifying equipment. Up to 

19,000 acre-feet (30 million cubic yards) 

would be removed from the reservoir 

area and deposited on nearby lands. In 

cooperation with appropriate state and 

local agencies, TVA would determine 

how the federal lands would be used, 

probably as parts of modified versions 

of the existing wildlife management, 

environmental education, and public 

park areas. This alternative would 

require 10 to 12 years to implement and 

cost between $90 and $150 million. 

TVA did not identify a preferred 

alternative in the Draft EIS. TVA 

identified Alternative A—No Action as 

the preferred alternative in the Final 

EIS. 

Comments on the Final EIS 

TVA received comments on the Final 

EIS from the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Agency, and one individual 

affected by the flooding. The Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Agency expressed a 

preference for Alternative B. The 

Environmental Protection Agency did 

not express a preference for any 

alternative and noted the positive and 

negative aspects of each alternative. 

They did, however, suggest further 

consideration of Alternative B. TVA has 

carefully considered Alternative B and, 

as described below, decided to adopt 

Alternative A. 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

requested a more detailed analysis of 

the potential impacts of the preferred 

No Action Alternative on minority and 

low-income populations. The 

Environmental Justice analysis in the 

FEIS was based on relatively large 

census tracts and concluded that the 

action alternatives would not result in 

disproportionate impacts on minority 

and low-income populations. TVA has 

repeated this analysis for minority 

populations using data from smaller 

census blocks adjoining Nolichucky 

Reservoir. Minority populations made 

up about 1.2 percent of the year 2000 

population of 578 persons in these 

blocks. This proportion is well below 

the national, state, and county levels, 

and below that of the larger census 

tracts in which the blocks are located. 

The population within this area is well 

dispersed and there are few 

concentrations of residents within the 

floodplain. Data on low-income 

populations are not available for 

individual census blocks. A small 

cluster of low-cost housing occurs in the 

floodplain on the right bank of the 

reservoir; housing on the left bank is 

widely dispersed with no similar 

clusters. Due to the low percentage of 

minority populations, the low poverty 

level in much of the area, and the 

scattered location of housing in most of 

the area, no disproportionate effect on 

minority or low-income populations is 

anticipated. 

Decision 

TVA has decided to adopt Alternative 

A—No Action. 

Alternative A—No Action was 

selected over the other alternatives 

because it would result in few, if any, 

additional adverse environmental 

impacts, and could be implemented at 

little cost to TVA. As described in the 

FEIS, TVA has determined that the rate 

of sediment inflow into Nolichucky 

Reservoir has greatly decreased in 

recent years, and the present sediment 

inflow rate is likely close to the sand 

dredging removal rate of around 70,000 

tons per year. Based on this sediment 

inflow rate, there is little potential for 

flood damage to lands and existing 

structures within the floodplain to 

markedly increase in the future, even in 

the absence of sand dredging. TVA, 

however, would continue to permit 

qualified sand dredging operations to 

operate in the reservoir, further 

reducing the potential for increased 

future flood damages. While the risk of 

flooding would slowly decrease under 

this alternative assuming sand dredging 

continues, the risk of flooding nonfederal property would continue. 

Community awareness of flood risk, 

however, has increased in part because 

of this EIS process, and because TVA 

has provided updated flood level 

information to the community. In the 

event that flooding of some property 

occurs in the future, TVA would 

address it on a case by case basis as it 

has in the past. 

In reaching this decision, TVA has 

carefully considered both the comments 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
19752 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices 

and concerns voiced by the public and 

the results of the impact analyses. There 

was some support for each alternative. 

Based on the comments TVA received 

during the scoping and EIS review 

processes, there was strong public 

support for maintaining the reservoir 

and the existing recreational uses of the 

reservoir and adjacent public lands; 

Alternative A does this. 

Alternatives C and D would eliminate 

the dam-related flooding. In doing so, 

they would partially or fully eliminate 

the reservoir and many of its current 

recreational uses. They would also 

destroy the wetlands habitats around 

the reservoir, and adversely affect the 

Nolichucky River downstream of the 

dam. While Alternative B would not 

have the adverse impacts of Alternatives 

C and D, it would cost $15 to $20 

million to implement and could result 

in the relocation of many homeowners 

or restrictions on use of their property. 

None of the alternatives would restore 

the recreational benefits that once 

existed at Nolichucky Reservoir and 

have since been lost due to the 

accumulation of sediment. 

TVA has determined that the 

implementation of Alternative A would 

not affect historic properties and has 

consulted with the Tennessee State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in 

accordance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. The 

SHPO concurred with TVA’s 

determination on April 28, 2005. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

also concurred that implementation of 

Alternative A would not adversely affect 

federally listed or proposed endangered 

or threatened species. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

Alternative B is the environmentally 

preferred alternative because it would 

accomplish the project purpose of 

alleviating the flood impacts on private 

land and property, would not involve 

any adverse impacts on the surrounding 

natural and human environment, would 

increase the land area available for 

public recreation, and would enhance 

the conservation of many resources. 

Even though Alternative B is the 

environmentally preferred alternative, 

Alternative A also would not have 

adverse environmental impacts. 

Mitigation 

Alternative A—No Action that TVA 

has selected is not anticipated to 

adversely affect natural or human 

resources, and consequently TVA has 

determined that no associated 

mitigation measures are necessary. TVA 

does commit, however, to providing 

updated flood level information to local 

agencies and individuals so that they 

are better aware of flooding risks. 

Dated: April 13, 2007. 

Kathryn J. Jackson, 

Executive Vice President, River System 

Operations & Environment. 

[FR Doc. E7–7439 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8120–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

[OST–2007–27909] 

Advisory Committee on Impacts of 

Climate Variability and Change on 

Transportation Systems and 

Infrastructure—Gulf Coast Case Study 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting of advisory 

committee. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

second meeting of the Advisory 

Committee on Impacts of Climate 

Variability and Change on 

Transportation Systems and 

Infrastructure—Gulf Coast Case Study to 

the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(the ‘‘Advisory Committee’’). The 

purpose of this meeting is to advise the 

Secretary of Transportation on the 

design, implementation and final report 

of Synthesis and Assessment Product 

4.7, which examines how a changing 

climate might affect transportation 

infrastructure and services in the Gulf 

Coast. This research is being conducted 

under the Climate Change Science 

Program. 

DATES: The second meeting of the 

Advisory Committee is scheduled for 

May 16–17, 2007, from 8 a.m. until 5 

p.m. each day. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Tremont House, 2300 Ship’s 

Mechanic Row, Galveston, Texas 77550. 

Phone: 409–763–0300. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Michael Savonis, the Designated Federal 

Official, Office of Natural and Human 

Environment, 202–366–2080, 

(michael.savonis@dot.gov), Federal 

Highway Administration, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Through consultation with 

transportation professionals, 

researchers, and partners, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) has 

identified a need within the 

transportation community for improved 

information about climate variability 

and change when making transportation 

decisions. A sound transportation 

system is vital to the nation’s social and 

economic future. Investments in 

transportation are substantial, and result 

in infrastructure that is designed to last 

for decades. Transportation plans and 

designs should therefore be carefully 

considered and well informed by a 

range of factors, including consideration 

of climate variability and change. 

Climate also affects the safety, 

operations, and maintenance of 

transportation infrastructure and 

systems. This research will investigate 

the potential impacts of climate 

variability and change on transportation 

infrastructure and its operation, and 

provide guidance as to how 

transportation planners and decision 

makers may incorporate this 

information into transportation 

planning decisions to ensure a reliable 

and robust future transportation 

network. 

The Gulf Coast Study was selected by 

DOT as the first of a series of research 

activities that the Center will pursue to 

address these research priorities. This 

initial product will focus on the lowlying Gulf of Mexico coastal region, 

which has little topographic relief but it 

is heavily populated. In addition, the 

area’s transportation modes are both 

unique and economically significant. 

For example, the Ports of New Orleans 

and Houston are the top two ranking 

U.S. ports in tonnage. Roughly two 

thirds of all U.S. oil imports are 

transported through this region. 

Pipelines traversing the region transport 

over 90 percent of domestic Outer 

Continental Shelf oil and gas. Almost 

half of the Nation’s repetitive flood 

damage claims are paid to homeowners 

and businesses in this region, and the 

efficacy of evacuation during storms is 

an important determinant of the safety 

and well-being of the region’s 

population. This region is subject to the 

direct effects of hurricanes and tropical 

storms. Given its low elevation, the area 

is also particularly vulnerable to 

flooding and storm surges that 

accompany hurricanes and tropical 

storms. These effects may be 

exacerbated by global sea level rise and 

local land subsidence. 

To carry out this study, the U.S. DOT 

published a notice of intent to form an 

Advisory Committee in the Federal 

Register on June 22, 2006 (71 FR 35986). 

That notice, consistent with the 

requirements of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), announced the 

establishment of the Committee and 

invited comments on the nominations 

for membership. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES